Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lee Buckalew]

For those interested in Dante clocking, please check out the following power point. 
Dante Advanced Configuration


Specifically where you will find on page 17:

"The sync tolerance of Dante devices is guaranteed to be +/-1μs (microsecond)
In practice we find it to be more like +/-0.2μs
One clock cycle at 48kHz is 20.8μs
So we have a realistic sync within 1/100th of a sample!
All outputs from the network will be w/c aligned!"


That last line seems to dispute Lee's comments earlier about arrival differences for difference end nodes on the network and issues with say line arrays.

Does anyone know the sync tolerance spec on AVB?

David,
I was reiterating what I have been told by manufacturers such as L 'Acoustics.  they have directly told me that is why they chose AVB over Dante. 

I have never tested it myself.

Lee

[Helge A Bentsen]

I did a show last night on a EAW Adaptive rig, it's Dante all the way. The rig performer flawlessly as I would expect.

Asked the guy owning it if he ever have had any issues with it, he just came off mixing audience sound for a 10 week music show on tv using that rig. Never had a issue with it during his regular tv shows or other stuff he's been doing. In fact, he finds Dante so reliable that he has dropped using secondary for most shows.
Same thing with all the Yamaha owners I talk to, they usually run Dante primary only.

I'm not saying that it's not possible to have Dante failures, but it seems that you would need more usage time than I have to experience failures or I've been lucky. There could be a ton of cases that I haven't heard about.

[Justice C. Bigler]

From what I have been able to gather, the crux of the issue, as I understand it, relates to running Dante to each speaker cabinet in a line or point source array, and that there can me phase alignment issues due to the latency inherent in the Dante system when trying to keep each cabinet aligned.

I think it's a much, much less of a problem if you are only running Dante to the DSP or the amp and then using traditional analog wire for speakers.

At least that is how I understood it when I pressed a guy from L-Acoustics during a demo at a local dealer.

In my mind, if I was running a large array of speakers, I wouldn't use Dante as the audio transport to the cabinets. I might use it to get from the console to the DSP or from the DSP to the amps. But not the individual speakers. Unless I was just deploying a small SOS system with a few cabinets for specific areas, which would make Dante a super easy and flexible solution.

[Phillip Ivan Pietruschka]

From what I have been able to gather, the crux of the issue, as I understand it, relates to running Dante to each speaker cabinet in a line or point source array, and that there can me phase alignment issues due to the latency inherent in the Dante system when trying to keep each cabinet aligned.

I think it's a much, much less of a problem if you are only running Dante to the DSP or the amp and then using traditional analog wire for speakers.

At least that is how I understood it when I pressed a guy from L-Acoustics during a demo at a local dealer.

In my mind, if I was running a large array of speakers, I wouldn't use Dante as the audio transport to the cabinets. I might use it to get from the console to the DSP or from the DSP to the amps. But not the individual speakers. Unless I was just deploying a small SOS system with a few cabinets for specific areas, which would make Dante a super easy and flexible solution.

I’ve been told something similar by a rep from one of the other speaker brands. I have never observed the issues they mention, though latency in a Dante network can be complicated. Each device has its own latency setting; not all devices support all latency options; and Multicast always operates at 1ms latency. These are the things I see as potential ‘gotchas’, not some hypothetical drifting.

Running redundant Dante links to each cab sure would mean you’d have a lot of data cables coming from a hang though.

I think the practical advantages of running AoIP direct to line array speakers is modest however. Probably far more valuable for installation type speakers.

[Taylor Hall]

From what I have been able to gather, the crux of the issue, as I understand it, relates to running Dante to each speaker cabinet in a line or point source array, and that there can me phase alignment issues due to the latency inherent in the Dante system when trying to keep each cabinet aligned.

I think it's a much, much less of a problem if you are only running Dante to the DSP or the amp and then using traditional analog wire for speakers.

At least that is how I understood it when I pressed a guy from L-Acoustics during a demo at a local dealer.

In my mind, if I was running a large array of speakers, I wouldn't use Dante as the audio transport to the cabinets. I might use it to get from the console to the DSP or from the DSP to the amps. But not the individual speakers. Unless I was just deploying a small SOS system with a few cabinets for specific areas, which would make Dante a super easy and flexible solution.

We've been solely using Dante on our Radius rig for the past 2+ years and have never run into the phasing issues described. This is with two hangs of 6 cabinets each. We tested early on using different network topologies where each hang had its own small switch as well as linking them in one long chain from the end of one hang to the beginning of another and saw no difference in sound quality and zero glitches/digital artifacting. The latency shift was so minimal we didn't even need to adjust anything in the controller to make up for it.

At this point I'd almost look at these claims as mud slinging, but with only anecdotal evidence from either side we'll probably never know until someone fully documents this behavior past 'hearing it from a friend of an A1' or taking a sales rep's words at face value. If there IS an issue, then it needs to be known so that operators can either compensate for it, or hold the developer accountable for implementing a fix.

[David Sturzenbecher]

At this point I'd almost look at these claims as mud slinging, but with only anecdotal evidence from either side we'll probably never know until someone fully documents this behavior past 'hearing it from a friend of an A1' or taking a sales rep's words at face value. If there IS an issue, then it needs to be known so that operators can either compensate for it, or hold the developer accountable for implementing a fix.

I really think you nailed the issue here.  This industry is becoming more and more technical, and the typical audio sales rep isn't keeping up on the technology.  I regularly have to correct sales people on features sets within their own products. Some companies have technical sales folks that really know their stuff, others not so much...

[Miguel Dahl]

"Sound rig sounds wierd, switched from dante to analog, all good" is not a much seen topic. Can it be one of those examples just like a 2" cab can do 144 decibels? Measure at the best/absolutely worst constructed setting?

[Justice C. Bigler]

Part of the problem is there's no real way to test this in a scientific way. The products have to be built by the manufacturers to either include the feature set or not. You can't set up a 12 per side hang of Leopards or Karas and test wether the latency or phasing issues exist with Dante unless the manufacturers actually build them.

I do wish that they would at least include it as an option and let the end users determine if the feature meets the cost:benefit ratio for ourselves.


In other words, let the market determine if there is a problem.

[Taylor Hall]

In other words, let the market determine if there is a problem.

Indeed, far too many variables and unknowns in what is being reported. In the end, time will tell and the adoption rate of AVB will either be its saving grace or nail in the coffin. I'm all for 'the next big thing' if it makes my life easier, but so far this seems more like a pissing match than touting any kind of real innovation.

[Mike Pyle]

It could be the manufacturers decided that AVB presented less risk of user error that could reflect badly on their product.

[ProSoundWeb Community]